Friedemann Zumbusch, Peter Schlattmann, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
{"title":"Frontiers | Facial nerve reconstruction for flaccid facial paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Friedemann Zumbusch, Peter Schlattmann, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal–facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric–facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House–Brackmann grade I–III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsFrom 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%–61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%–75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%–72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%–82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%–70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, p = 0.1611).ConclusionsThe established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectivesTo determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal–facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric–facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House–Brackmann grade I–III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsFrom 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%–61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%–75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%–72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%–82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%–70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, p = 0.1611).ConclusionsThe established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.
期刊介绍:
Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles.
Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery.
Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact.
The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.